CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Mathematics Education and Teaching TechniquesMathematics Education and PedagogyVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Errors During Exploration and Consolidation—The Effectiveness of Productive Failure as Sequentially Guided Discovery Learning

Loibl, Katharina, Leuders, Timo·2018·Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik
DOI 10.1007/s13138-018-0130-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13138-018-0130-7

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. Ausubel, D. P. (1964). Some psychological and educational limitations of learning by discovery. The Arithmetic Teacher, 11, 290–302.
  2. Barzel, B., Leuders, T., Prediger, S., & Hußmann, S. (2013). Designing tasks for engaging students in active knowledge organization. In Watson, et al. (Ed.), ICMI Study 22 on Task Design—Proceedings of Study Conference. Oxford. (pp. 285–294).
  3. Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 564–577. · DOI
  4. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–32.
  5. Büchter, A., & Leuders, T. (2005). Mathematikaufgaben selbst entwickeln. Lernen fördern—Leistung überprüfen. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor.
  6. Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32, 3–14. · DOI
  7. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.
  8. Devolder, A., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2012). Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments: systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), 557–573. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In H. Spada & P. Reimann (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.
  10. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 671–688. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Durkin, K., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). The effectiveness of using incorrect examples to support learning about decimal magnitude. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 206–214. · DOI
  12. Eichelmann, A., Narciss, S., Schnaubert, L., & Melis, E. (2012). Typische Fehler bei der Addition und Subtraktion von Brüchen—Ein Review zu empirischen Fehleranalysen. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 33(1), 29–57. · DOI
  13. Ernest, P. (2014). Policy debates in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 480–484). Dordrecht: Springer. · DOI
  14. Flewelling, G., & Higginson, W. (2003). Teaching with rich learning tasks: a handbook. Adelaide: AAMT Inc.
  15. Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht: Springer.
  16. Haverty, L., Koedinger, K., Klahr, D., & Alibali, M. (2000). Solving inductive reasoning problems in mathematics: not-so-trivial pursuit. Cognitive Science, 2, 249–298. · DOI
  17. Heemsoth, T., & Heinze, A. (2014). The impact of incorrect examples on learning fractions: a field experiment with 6th grade students. Instructional Science, 42(4), 639–657. · DOI
  18. Hußmann, S., Leuders, T., Barzel, B., & Prediger, S. (2011). Kontexte für sinnstiftendes Mathematiklernen (KOSIMA)—ein fachdidaktisches Forschungs- und Entwicklungsprojekt. In Beiträge zum Mathematikunterricht (pp. 419–422). Münster: wtm.
  19. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Learning together and alnone. Overview and meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(1), 95–105. · DOI
  20. Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science, 40, 651–672. · DOI
  21. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Klein, F. (1908). Elementarmathematik vom höheren Standpunkte aus. Teil I: Arithmetik, Algebra, Analysis. Leipzig: Teubner.
  23. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations. Cambridge: Cambridge Press. · DOI
  24. Lazonder, A. W. (2014). Inquiry learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 453–464). New York: Springer. · DOI
  25. Leuders, T. (2014). Entdeckendes Lernen—Produktives Üben. In H. Linneweber-Lamerskitten (Ed.), Fachdidaktik Mathematik. Grundbildung und Kompetenzaufbau im Unterricht der Sek. I und II (pp. 236–263). Seelze: Klett/Kallmeyer.
  26. Leuders, T., Naccarella, D., & Philipp, K. (2011). Experimentelles Denken—Vorgehensweisen beim innermathematischen Experimentieren. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 32(2), 205–231. · DOI
  27. Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014). Knowing what you don’t know makes failure productive. Learning and Instruction, 34, 74–85. · DOI
  28. Loibl, K., Roll, I., & Rummel, N. (2017). Towards a theory of when and how problem solving followed by instruction supports learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 693–715. · DOI
  29. McNamara, J., & Shaughnessy, M. M. (2011). Student errors: what can they tell us about what students do understand? http://akrti2015.pbworks.com/f/StudentErrors_JM_MS_Article.pdf . Accessed 02.03.2018.
  30. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14–19. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Mazziotti, C., Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2015). Collaborative or individual learning within productive failure. Does the social form of learning make a difference? In O. Lindwall, P. Häkkinen, T. Koschman, P. Tchounikine & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Exploring the material conditions of learning: the computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) conference 2015 (Vol. 2, pp. 570–575). Gothenburg: ISLS.
  32. Oser, F., Hascher, T., & Spychiger, M. (1999). Lernen aus Fehlern. Zur Psychologie des “negativen” Wissens. In W. Althof (Ed.), Fehlerwelten. Vom Fehlermachen und Lernen aus Fehlern (pp. 11–41). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
  33. Renkl, A. (2005). The worked-out example principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 229–247). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  34. Padberg, F. (2009). Didaktik der Bruchrechnung für Lehrerausbildung und Lehrerfortbildung (4th edn.). Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag. · DOI
  35. Pitkethly, A., & Hunting, R. (1996). A review of recent research in the area of initial fraction concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30(1), 5–38. · DOI
  36. Pólya, G. (1954). Induction and analogy in mathematics. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  37. Prediger, S. (2008). The relevance of didactic categories for analysing obstacles in conceptual change: revisiting the case of multiplication of fractions. Learning and Instruction, 18(1), 3–17. · DOI
  38. Prediger, S. (2011). Anknüpfen, Konfrontieren, Gegenüberstellen. Strategien zur Weiterarbeit mit individuellen Vorstellungen am Beispiel relativer Häufigkeiten. Praxis der Mathematik in der Schule, 53(40), 8–13.
  39. Prediger, S. (2014). Focussing structural relations in the bar board—a design research study for fostering all students’ conceptual understanding of fractions. In B. Ubuz, C. Haser & M. A. Mariotti (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Ankara. (pp. 343–352).
  40. Prediger, S., & Schink, A. (2009). Three eights of which whole?—Dealing with changing referent wholes as a key to the part-of-part-model for the multiplication of fractions. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 409–416). Thessaloniki: PME.
  41. Prediger, S., Glade, M., & Schmidt, U. (2011). Wozu rechnen wir mit Anteilen? Herausforderung der Sinnstiftung am schwierigen Beispiel der Bruchoperationen. Praxis der Mathematik in der Schule, 53(37), 28–35.
  42. Prediger, S., Hußmann, S., Leuders, T., & Barzel, B. (2014). Kernprozesse—Ein Modell zur Strukturierung von Unterrichtsdesign und Unterrichtshandeln. In I. Bausch, G. Pinkernell & O. Schmitt (Eds.), Unterrichtsentwicklung und Kompetenzorientierung. Festschrift für Regina Bruder (pp. 81–92). Münster: WTM.
  43. Prediger, S., Barzel, B., Hußmann, S., & Leuders, T. (2013). mathewerkstatt 6. Berlin: Cornelsen.
  44. Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91–109. · DOI
  45. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 175–189. · DOI
  46. Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 285–296. · DOI
  47. Shulman, L. S., & Keislar, E. R. (1966). Learning by discovery: a critical appraisal. Chicago: Rand McNally.
  48. Sierpinska, A. (1994). Understanding in mathematics. London, Washington: The Falmer Press.
  49. Stafylidou, S., & Vosniadou, S. (2004). The development of students’ understanding of the numerical value of fractions. Learning and Instruction, 14, 503–518. · DOI
  50. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1996). Grounded theory: Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung. Weinheim: Beltz.
  51. Tobias, S. (1989). Another look at research on the adaptation of instruction to student characteristics. Educational Psychologist, 24, 213–227. · DOI
  52. Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. (2009). Constructivist instruction: success or failure? New York: Routledge. · DOI
  53. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2003). The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics education: an example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54(1), 9–35. · DOI
  54. Vosniadou, S., & Verschaffel, L. (2004). Extending the conceptual change approach to mathematics learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 14(5), 445–451. · DOI
  55. Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2006). Seeing an exercise as a single mathematical object: using variation to structure sense-making. Mathematical thinking and learning, 8(2), 91–111. · DOI
  56. Winter, H. (1989). Entdeckendes Lernen im Mathematikunterricht: Einblicke in die Ideengeschichte und ihre Bedeutung für die Pädagogik. Braunschweig: Vieweg. · DOI
  57. Wittmann, E. C. (1992). Wider die Flut der bunten Hunde und der grauen Päckchen: Die Konzeption des aktiv entdeckenden Lernens und produktiven Übens. In G. N. Müller & E. C. Wittmann (Eds.), Handbuch produktiver Rechenübungen (pp. 152–166). Stuttgart: Klett.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Loibl, K., & Leuders, T.
Affiliations
University of Education Freiburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Loibl, Katharina
ORCID
Venue
Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-03-12
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
69-96
ISSN
  • 0173-5322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1869-2699
DOI
10.1007/s13138-018-0130-7
OpenAlex
W2789938544
Cited by
34
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2
FWCI
6.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG (LO 2196/1-1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
productive failure, discovery learning, mathematics learning, fraction problems, instructional prompts, student problem-solving strategies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review